MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388194373 · doi:10.12194/j.ntu.20200805001

Improvement on Pose Estimation of an Object in the Robotic Vision

2021· article· en· W4388194373 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoseComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceObject (grammar)3D pose estimation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to solve the problem of inaccurate pose estimation by the classical direct linear transformation(DLT) and efficient perspective-n-point(EPNP) methods, an improved method for pose estimation is proposed. The computation process of the DLT method is optimized for easy solving. The nonlinear optimization is introduced to improve its accuracy. A proper cost function is proposed based on the Levenberg-Marquardt(LM) algorithm for solving Jocabian matrix easily. The Li group and Li algebra are introduced for representing the tiny transformation of the pose matrix, which simplifies the solution of Jocabian matrix and iterative process of optimization. The experimental results show that the proposed method is much more accurate than the DLT and the EPNP methods, and is more accurate than the DLT + numerical value-based LM algorithm. The total mean image re-projection error is 0.269 0 pixel. The time consuming experiments indicate that the proposed method needs less time compared with the DLT + numeriacl value-based LM algorithm. Its total average time is 67.48 ms per frame. These prove that the proposed method has comprehensively good performance in precision and time cost, which has good practical value.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.403 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207